Deconstruction

>>9214893
On its own terms decon is realism with eyes. It's not terribly difficult, really just a matter of pointing out how most arguments, say, implode on their own. For instance, when Yeats wonders how it is possible to distinguish the dancer from the dance, the deconstructionist notes that the poet himself has just made that distinction, dancer\dance, so if the poet can distinguish, so can the reader, and the words as a result lose what is called 'meaning' --it's a pretty dirty business, some are more skillful at using it than others, but, at this time, though sometimes useful, thoroughly bankrupt as a religion.

>>9214893

tl;dring the post above, deconstruction is basically the idea that language is self-defeating. It's a pretty spicy way to rejuvenate literary criticism because now that we've said everything to say about most books worth reading we can go back and show how all those books are actually saying the exact opposite.

My favorite deconstruction is Zizek's commentary on The Sound of Music: The message of the movie is anti-nazi but when you look at the subtext it's secretly fascist. The good guys are pastoral aryans from the countryside, straight out of a German propaganda poster about the way the world used to be, while the Nazis are all wealthy, urban, jew-looking.

That's an example of deconstruction.

>>9214893
You can oppose Deconstruction to Structuralism, for contrast if that helps.

One of the simplest deffinitions I've heard is "swapping the foreground for the background". That is, looking beyond what is obvious and intended, and looking at the context surrounding the artwork.

>>9215130
So a convoluted way of taking things out of context while still making it appear related to the original subject.

Seems pretty silly and pretty fun.

>>9215159
No, it's about taking things "in context" not out of context.